Get My Context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is safe to call repeatedly, requires authentication, returns only the caller's own data, and returns live account state. It does not contradict annotations. A small gap is that it doesn't describe the output schema shape, but the output schema exists and the description covers the key behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the most important fact (read-only, safe to call repeatedly), and every sentence adds value: what it returns, why it matters, and when to call again. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the return contents, the authentication requirement, the privacy boundary, and the live-state caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret its role in the broader toolset.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the returned data contains and how it should be used, which is more relevant than parameter semantics for a no-parameter tool. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('lookup'), a clear resource (the caller's own context), and enumerates exactly what is returned (first name, active school, guardian students, role codes). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as the context-discovery call that other tools depend on.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it: as the context-discovery call, before other tools that need student_id or school_slug, and for admin-role checks. It also tells the agent to call again if the user may have switched schools or roles changed. This is strong usage guidance with no ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.